May 06, 2014

New ABA Task Force On Financing Legal Education

The ABA has announced the creation of a new task force on financing legal education. It will be led by Dennis Archer, the former Mayor of Detroit, and includes Incoming Dean Luke Bierman (Elon), Dean Rachel Moran (UCLA), Professor Philip Schrag (Georgetown) and Dean Robert Wilcox (South Carolina), among others.

From the ABA Press Release:

The task force is charged with looking at the cost of legal education for students, the financing of law schools, student loans and educational debt. It will also consider current practices of law schools regarding the use of merit scholarships, tuition discounting and need-based aid.

“As law school tuitions and educational debt loads increase at the same time employment opportunities for recent graduates are constrained, the ABA needs to lead a thorough examination of the financing of legal education and law schools,” [ABA President James] Silkenat said. “Members of the ABA Task Force on the Financing of Legal Education will conduct a comprehensive study of the complex economic and political issues involved and produce sound recommendations to inform policymakers throughout the legal community.”

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My contention is there is no "reform movement" at all. Changes (not reforms) are being brought about by market pressures, namely, the huge decline in applications. Barbara Boxer was not reading blogs. Senators pick up issues when they get constituent pressure, so obviously some constituent who mattered got her ear. The NYT did quote Tamanaha, whose book appeared around this time, I remember that. There was an interview with David Segal, the NYT reporter, in which he said he got interested in the topic because of friends and friends of friends who went to law school and were unemployed. Once he got interested in the topic, unsurprisingly he began interviewing people like Tamanaha and Campos. Tamanaha's book definitely had influence and was widely reviewed.

I guess I just don't see any causal connection between better disclosure requirements and market pressure from the decline in applications. Why would law schools (or the ABA) think that giving better data, but data that makes their degrees look less valuable, would increase the rate of applications in response to the decline?

If your point is that there is no reform movement within law schools, I'd have to disagree based on personal experience. There are a real number of reformers out there. I'd agree that we would do well to avoid overstating the force that movement can currently exert. Real reforms are slow in coming in no small part because those types of reforms are (a) often antithetical to the personal interests of a significant cohort of law faculty and administrators, and (b) would require painful and potentially risky financial restructuring by many institutions.

Ha, another anon has no idea what was going on behind the scenes from 2010 and on. Not with the journalists and not with the ABA and not with the Senate. But because it wasn't seen, it didn't happen.

Note that I don't think it had anything to do with comments or blog posts, but a full on strategy was indeed in place. That said, I know that a number of those involved were influenced at times even if not originally by a lively community of concerned students and alumni.

No doubt, Kyle McEntee did it all, "behind the scenes"! Come on! You did useful work, and deserve more credit than most for making transparency about employment data an issue. But the two decisive events were Boxer's taking on the ABA and the Times articles. Crazy scam blogging was irrelevant, and still is.

I'm confused. Do critics like McEntee deserve some credit "for making transparency about employment data an issue" or was their work "irrelevant"? I don't really see how you can have both at the same time. Even assuming that Boxer and the NYT's involvement were the "decisive events", that doesn't mean that there is "no reform movement at all" that had some impact, as you claimed up thread.

First Another Anon claims that there is "no reform movement" and that "no institutions or individuals" can be named who are a part of it, and then Another Anon proceeds to identify the individuals and institutions Another Anon believes led or are leading it. To deny the existence of all other efforts to spark reform and improve transparency is sort of insane, and perhaps stated here just to provoke and divert attention.

Another Anon's contention that Barbara Boxer, the ABA and NYT have been the leading an effort to institute reform in legal academy to the exclusion of all others is bizarre.

Another Anon also contends (if serious) that the hue and cry in so many venues and the information that has been developed outside the sources Another Anon mentions has had nothing to do with declining enrollment. This is ludicrous. Ask Steve Freedman about that. He can explain the reasons for his posts here and on TLS.

As said above, Another Anon is confused and angry. And, based on the level of projection evidenced in AA's comments, an irrational voice perhaps all too familiar is seen here, whose true purpose may be only to provoke and incite and contribute nothing.

So far no one has identified any individuals or organizations that are part of the "law school reform movement." While there are some individuals who made a difference, like Kyle McEntee, there is no "movement."

Boxer's letters to the ABA prompted the ABA to change the job reporting requirements. The NY Times articles brought the terrible job market to national attention. Students could now see, thanks to Boxer, how bad placement was at many schools. Applications tanked. Schools have been trying to adjust to that market reality. Meanwhile, blog ranters rant and think they have something to do with all this. You can believe what you want.